The ITER fusion reactor needs super-strong steel to withstand its fiery hot temperatures. Fortunately, an American national laboratory has developed just such a steel, and has made it affordable as well. (Source: ITER)

New steel from Oak Ridge National Laboratory is cheaper and stronger than past steel, likely to be used in ITER fusion reactor

DailyTech last month reported that Great Britain was working on super steels. These ultra-strong steels would be made possible by preventing irregularities in steel, which weaken its internal magnetics, making it more susceptible to heat.

Now it appears that the Americans have beaten the Brits to the punch, unveiling their own completed super steel. The new steel was developed at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the U.S. ITER Project Office, which is housed at ORNL. The ORNL was recently in the news for inventing a new titanium manufacturing technique.

With its new cast stainless steel, it continued its successes. The new steel is approximately 70 percent stronger than comparable steels and could be a boon to the fusion industry. Its material parameters are being evaluated carefully, as it is being considered for use in shielding ITER's fusion device.

The new steel will need to be ultra strong at high temperatures. One key goal of the project is to develop self-burning plasmas. Hundreds of tons of shielding will be needed to block heat and radiation from this plasma. The shielding, primarily composed of super steel, will be close to the plasma, which will be heated to 100 million degrees. While the shielding itself won't be this hot, it will get more than a little toasty.

ITER is being built at Cadarache, France. The United States, China, the European Union, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea and the Russian Federation are all contributing components. The reactor will be of a tokamak design -- a torus of hot plasma contained by a magnetic field. The device is expected to produce around 500 MW of fusion power when functioning.

Jeremy Busby of the ORNL Materials Science and Technology Division says designing steel to withstand the extremes of the reactor is a difficult challenge. He states, "The United States must produce nearly 100 of these modules that are 3-4 tons each and include geometric shapes and openings."

The holes drilled in the steel will weaken it and will result in the loss of 30 percent of the material. While casting the shape would be more economical and efficient, cast steel traditionally is much weaker. However, thanks to recent breakthroughs the researchers are beginning to get the problem under control.

Explains Mr. Busby, "We're working to improve the materials' properties to reduce the amount of machining and welding and allow for better performance. The use of casting can have potential value engineering benefits resulting in cost savings on the order of 20 to 40 percent as compared to machining, so this could be a fairly significant economic issue, both for ITER and in other future uses."

Mike Hechler, USIPO manager of Blanket Shielding and Port Limiter systems, initially approached Mr. Bosby and his team with the request that they design super-steel shielding for the reactor. Mr. Bosby adds, "He talked with us because of ORNL's materials science expertise. He was familiar with our industry work and hopeful that we could help provide a solution."

Eighteen months later, the work is almost finished.

In order to strengthen the steel, scientists focused on fracture properties, tensile strength, microstructure properties, welds, impact properties, corrosion performance and radiation resistance. Through carefully controlled attempts using different casting techniques and varying the composition slightly, his team was able to almost double many key strength properties.

Now Mr. Bosby and his team have to await the final word from ITER on whether the material has passed its standards. He states, "We expect to hear fairly soon about how our cast stainless steel may be used in this groundbreaking project."

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Alternative headlines1.) US sooooo much better than UK at making steel2.) US is super and so is its steel; UK stuck at "good"3.) UK better than US at getting into news first, but then there's that problem with producing4.) If I were super steel, where would I be? Oh yeah, in the US (not the UK, obviously).5.) Americans make super steel, but UK secretly working on superer. In related news, country of Britain requests that Websters recognize "superer" as a word.

Interesting, because I actually see this as an example of the opposite argument...

If we accept that both are "purportedly saying the same thing" (paraphrasing his comment), wouldn't the one that people find more pleasing to read, or "worth reading," naturally be bumped up? If it came down to "I agree" or "I disagree" then they would both be voted the same way.

I believe that there are studies that show such things, and it even makes sense that the results would vary.

However, if I'm applying what you are implying correctly, wouldn't the question that we are asking be, "Is this post worth reading or not worth reading?" The two posts aren't different answers to two differently worded (yet, substantively identical) questions; they are a different scenario entirely. Here, we're asked the same question (identically worded) to two differently worded (yet, substantively identical) comments.

quote: ORNL funding for FY 2007 exceeds $1.2 billion; 80 percent of that amount comes from the Department of Energy, and 20 percent is from other federal and private customers.

Thats from wikipedia.

In other words, I, the US tax payer, give them 80 cents on every dollar they spend. Therefore, that is a national program.

As someone else said, get over it. Competition is healthy; this aversion to competition and any discomfort whatsoever is not what got North America and Europe where it is, and it is not the type of pressure that is causing the BRIC nations to surge forward.

Actually it completely against what our country was founded on. We were set out to be an individualist nation where government came second to freedom.It wasn't until the 20th century when we started to stick our noses into the business of other nations that you had your collectivist nationalism.

It is a race.. Its always a race.. If there wasn't a drive to be the first, there wouldn't be a drive.. In science it the person that figures it out first that wins the metal, wins the funding. Everyone else after that is just proving the point. Most of the time, countries fund the research through one branch or another.. DARPA, DOD, BNES, DME, etc. Therefore, they get to claim fame, tout their flag, draw interests from other scientist looking for funding in a relative field. National Scientific Pride is used for recruitment and goes back to moon missions, Manhattan project, and Computer race. Scientists are drawn to the places that will fund their interests/research.

Anyone who is familiar with how scientific research happens would think this whole "country vs country" thing is absurd, it is only losers sitting behind their keyboards who get excited becuase *their* country makes an advancement in science.

Same people who constantly ridicule the French at any given opportunity.

Not much reading between the lines of your OP needed to see that you disagree strongly, to the point of offense to the headline.

I know, I know, you're one of those everybody's a winner, let's not keep score and just play the game type of fellows. I on the other hand believe there is a difference between healthy and unhealthy competition.

quote: it is only losers sitting behind their keyboards who get excited becuase *their* country makes an advancement in science.

You just described pretty much every sports fan on Earth. They're just "losers sitting behind their [televisions] who get excited because *their* [country/school/state/city] makes a [touchdown/field goal/home run/etc] in [football/baseball/etc]" when they contributed nothing to the process themselves, and when teams are composed of people from all across the country and sometimes the world. If they made a contribution at all, it'd be because they bought tickets, paid tuition to a college team, or in the case of ORNL, paid taxes.

Apparently however many billion people tune in to watch sports every week for some game or another, well, they're all losers. Can you paint the loser net much wider? :P

On that note:Look how China handle their Olympians.. They breed them for gold, then honor their participation.

Look at Britain Olympians, they out-source them from other countries. Then celebrate their hired gold.

U.S. does a little of both, but really, they usually get one great star that wins most of the gold for them.

Can you pull from memory who was 4th place in the last mens swimming event in the Olympics?Can you pull from memory the 2nd guy to make penicillin?Can you pull from memory who was 2nd person to figure out lighting was electrical?As it is said "2nd is the first loser.."

You can honor participation of games, or invention, or idea; it does take something to get to that level. However, when the chips are on the table, its the winner that takes the pot. The size of the pot is what makes that champions podium taller.